User talk:Czar/2016 May–Aug

OpenCritic Updates?
Hey Czar,

Disclosure in case you don't remember me: I'm Matthew Enthoven, one of the founders of OpenCritic.

Before diving into the rest of this, I wanted to thank you for your feedback/idea. In case you don't remember, you suggested we should add additional labeling or something else that enhances score meaning. It's taken us a while (we've had other things cookin'), but I do think we're going to be adding that over the next few weeks. We're playing with the idea of tiers that would be "Mighty" (85+, 70% recommended, min 10 reviews, top ~10% of games), "Strong" (75-84, next 30% of games), "Average" (70-74, middle 20% of games), and "Weak" (69 or lower, bottom 40% of games). Anyways, just wanted to thank you for the suggestion.

We're still trying to figure out ways to make strides when it comes to Wikipedia and wanted to update with some of our progress. Previous conversations seemed to mostly conclude "too soon" and that we weren't "enough of a source in the industry." We wanted to continue to challenge that and get more feedback. Since the start of this year, we've added numerous features and seen our presence as an authority rising, so we thought it'd be a good time to ask again "what is it that you guys look for?"

We've added critic pages, with over 350 critics that have signed up and customized their page. To this day, we are the only aggregator that correctly attributes reviews to their author in addition to their publication.

We also added support for embeddable scores, which are now being used by The Escapist (see bottom of article) and Lazygamer. Websites such as Cubed3 and DarkZero now link to us in their footers, and PlayStation Universe lists us on their reviews.

We've been used as a source by Gamasutra (second paragraph), GeForce/Nvidia (see last paragraph), Examiner, Forbes, and others. We've also been added to Wikipedia Portugal on many pages. In the community, we're an officially sanctioned aggregator by the PS4 subreddit, and have been used across several reddit threads, often times as the only aggregator listed now. Metacritic has even made significant score mistakes, and a few of our users noticed.

We passed 100 publications included, and added word clouds that highlight key features and themes of reviews. We continue to see more and more traction across the board. We're adding 3DS and Vita titles now, with Fire Emblem Fates' review embargo already posted. We're the only aggregator that includes publications such as Eurogamer, AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit, and we're the only aggregator that maintains the original score format. We also report on the percentage of critics that recommend the title, a statistic that allows us to include non-numeric publications.

We strongly believe that we are the fastest and most reliable aggregator. We are consistently faster than Metacritic, as several critics have noticed. We've invested heavily in our technology and our presentation, and believe strongly that, while we draw on the same data as Metacritic, we offer a more complete and informed picture fo a title. As we wrap up our next few features, we're hoping to improve and, well...

The reason I'm writing is: We really want to know what you guys are looking for. This isn't a "please put us on Wikipedia" type thing: we're young gamers and don't really consider Wikipedia readers to be our demographic, and as we have no advertising, they'd be revenue-negative anyway. Instead, we're just looking for feedback. We consider you, as a video game editor, to be an intellectual in the industry that we want to support and thrive in. So we want to know - what do you look for when evaluating OpenCritic as an "industry source"? What are the variables/factors? What are the things we can improve?

We're always on the lookout for ideas, and as we wrap up our next few features, we want to get your thoughts and opinions.

Sincerely, MattEnth (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , some thoughts:
 * Qualitative description of score. What matters most to us (and, I'd wager, to readers) in this regard is a general overview of reception. For whatever reason, current metareviews and review roundups just present a few choice quotes instead of doing the reliable summary work that gives a definitive overview of critical reception. (One of the industry rags used to do a better job—similar to your Forbes example, actually—but I don't remember which or what they called their aggregate reviews.) Specifically for Wikipedia, we'd need more than "mighty" because that wouldn't fit well in prose. (Think The game received "mighty" reviews, according to video game review aggregator OpenCritic.) Metacritic's "universal acclaim" to "overwhelming dislike" scale is suitable here. Steam's user review scale language of "overwhelmingly positive" to "overwhelmingly negative" fits too (though we don't acknowledge user reviews since we are a tertiary source—we summarize the secondary sources of consequence).
 * I think there are two areas for innovation: dispersion and description. It's one thing that scores average out to X% but to what degree of dispersion around the mean? Are they close or really spread out? Is the acclaim truly universal or was the critical response divisive, though it ended up with a high average anyway? What about other ways to separate the data? Did the top sites all rate it highly while indie sites rated it poorly? Did specialist or genre-specific sites tend to rate it differently than generalist sites (while accounting for that subset's usual variance)? Did newspapers rate it differently than generalist gaming sites? Were any reviews uncharacteristic of a specific outlet? Of a specific author? You may not want to "take sides" (so to speak) by making these types of judgments (and I'd imagine that's the answer to my original question about Engadget and GameSpot above) but it's the type of bird's eye view that we need (written out in qualitative language) in order to accurately summarize any game's critical reception as an encyclopedia.
 * Comment I think this is a major weakness of Metacritic and its goal of collapsing critical consensus into one number and a great place to distinguish OpenCritic. What's the standard deviation on the scores? Is it unimodal or bimodal? I would love to get access to a lot more descriptive statistics on the data without having to do it by hand for every game. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliability. We give great weight to discretion. When we talk reliability, we're talking hallmarks of editorial quality: fact-checking or editorial policy, editor pedigree, trust from other vetted sources, etc. I personally think it reflects poorly on an aggregate site that weighs a hobbyist blog alongside IGN (not that I put great stock in review scores anyway). As a tertiary source, we summarize the secondary sources (the game reviews being secondary to the primary source experience—playing the game itself). We keep a list of vetted sources (so including AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit is not actually a perk). There is not one single thing reviewers do in order to "become reliable" (aside for trying to meet some of the aforementioned qualities), but when Vox Media opens The Rift Herald with editors from SB Nation and Polygon, we have a fairly high assurance that their posts will consistently exceed the run-of-the-mill blog's in credibility and accountability. Now, if OpenCritic could produce a separate aggregate score of only the sources we've vetted as reliable and exclude the rest? That would be interesting.
 * Industry and openness. It's really neat that you're in touch with us. (I'll try not to let it cloud my judgment.) There's something to be said for what the Internet Archive is doing to preserve the digital existence of games themselves, but from where I stand, preserving the memory of the game in its time (via its reviews and contemporaneous material) is just as important. I could play the first two minutes of a demo and struggle with the hardware setup, or I can read about how amazing it was to see Knight Lore for the first time. I'll level with you. The Metacritic monopoly doesn't concern me apart from its effect on sales and subsequent effect on what developers choose to develop, and I'm not sold on the idea of a simple average doing a better job (considering what I've already said about the injustice of sites of disproportionate influence being weighted equally), but I do really, really like the possibilities of what a more receptive aggregator can do for the community. I said in an interview not too long ago that I would love to work on a website that aggregates material from old gaming magazines—the stuff that is more or less dead to the world unless Jason Scott manages to find it in his information cube. Well, there's no need to reinvent the wheel:
 * Have you seen Wikidata? It's a successor to Freebase that collects a ton of data points on things so we can do useful manipulations on it. In the near future, our game reviews template will pull review data directly from this database, which will make for easier (automatic) organization of our quantitative data. If OpenCritic were to open up its review data by letting Wikidata import scraper results, you could also use the Wikidata API to pull the historic game reviews as they're entered. Remember that we are not interested in using every review in our articles, though that doesn't mean that Wikidata can't hold review data from all reliable sources—even the stuff the English Wikipedia (enwp) won't use. So here's the kicker: If we help with the peoplepower and structure to manually enter review data from old magazines, and you choose to use this Wikidata, OpenCritic would be in a position to provide aggregate, qualitative descriptions of the reception of older games, and OpenCritic would become much more valuable than GameRankings for our purposes. Something to consider. Plenty more thoughts, but I'll leave it at that for now. Let me know if there's any other way I can help, or if you prefer, . czar  08:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Czar,
 * Sorry for taking so long to get back to you here. I still am a bit busy :-\ I just got accepted to Stanford's MBA program and have been adjusting a lot of my responsibilities to ensure that OpenCritic is set up for success with my part-time involvement. I really do appreciate this feedback.
 * We're taking a looko at Wikidata, but haven't had a chance to do a deep dive. Most of my concerns are more on our end (OpenCritic's) than yours, as I'm not sure our API is ready for something of that scale. We're also going to be significantly expanding the quantity of reviews available in OpenCritic with a program we call "Indie Reviews," giving hobbyists their own section to report reviews.
 * For the first point, it sounds very similar to Rotten Tomatoes' "critics consensus," no? Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/E25VCnv.png
 * We've thought about doing something like that. Roughly half of all publications explicitly call out "Pros" and "Cons" - we've thought about trying to aggregate those lists specifically.
 * I will be back to reply more in depth later, but didn't want you to feel that your comments fell on deaf ears.
 * MattEnth (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , congrats & sounds good—your call. The descriptive, pointed, aggregate stats are most useful for our purposes because it lets us say something more generalized about the game's reception than, for instance, your Rotten Tomatoes example, which seemed too unspecific to be useful as a declarative statement about what sets the game apart from others. Maybe it's a requested feature, but user reviews wouldn't affect us since we don't acknowledge them (mentioned above, but also that they can be gamed and are generally low quality measures). Anyway, hope the feedback's useful. czar  00:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic using OpenCritic data

 * Very different chain but also didn't want to start a new section (sorry if this violates protocol).
 * What does Wikipedia make of events like this?
 * http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/167539-Did-OpenCritic-Review-Data-Pop-Up-on-Metacritic
 * http://www.pcgamesn.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/review-aggregator-site-opencritic-accuses-metacritic-of-using-their-data-without-consent
 * http://www.lazygamer.net/gaming-news/metacritic-accused-using-opencritics-data-without-permission/
 * http://www.psu.com/News/30090/OpenCritic-accuses-Metacritic-of-%E2%80%98sourcing%E2%80%99-game-review-data
 * OpenCritic's own statement can be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sonjhb
 * MattEnth (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , we cover claims proportional to their coverage in reliable, secondary sources. We don't use PSU or Lazygamer, we don't technically even use PCGamesN (too new, no pedigree), and we only use The Escapist sparingly, depending on the author. This is to say that it isn't vital to cover this, as major outlets have yet to cover the claim yet. If they did, they should hopefully do more than repackage the press release but games journalism. So someone might use your first two refs for a brief mention in the OpenCritic article (since it shows that secondary sources thought that the OpenCritic press release was worth covering), but not in the Metacritic article until there is more secondary source commentary atop the PR (because no one has covered the implications for Metacritic). I don't speak for Wikipedia, but that's how I'd read this situation. czar  01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was more mentioning it as an FYI than anything - don't take any action on my behalf. We're still trying to navigate wikipedia and were interested in seeing if this mattered at all when it comes to including OpenCritic as a review aggregator. We're starting to near the 100k Alexa rank and have had a few spikes of over 1000 concurrent users (Uncharted 4 most recently), but we're still trying to figure out what it means to be an "authority" in the broadest sense possible.MattEnth (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , we'd be most likely to use OC as a standard aggregator once vetted sources lead the way. (It will be pretty obvious to all involved once we reach that point.) This said, Wikidata now stores OpenCritic IDs, if you want to help populate those fields. I know other language Wikipedias have started to use OC intermittently (not standardized). czar  01:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Are we allowed to populate those fields? Or does that constitute COI?MattEnth (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly less familiar with Wikidata but I would say that helping to populate is encouraged! You might want to inquire if you're planning to do systematic/bot edits, but otherwise Wikidata has no COI policy. In the future, our review score data will be stored in Wikidata—if OpenCritic were to be able to help us populate Wikidata with individual and aggregate scores... that'd be fantastic. czar  01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We (Wikidatans) accept good faith actors (no spammers, etc.) updating items in their spheres of interest--with a property dedicated to OC, you should be fine in that regard. You may want to ask at the d:WD:Project chat about the best way to import the IDs. --Izno (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Dewey
I found a high-res copy of the current lead: https://efd.global/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/lc-usz62-51525.jpg (looks a bit washed out, but I checked and there's still detail in there). It's from https://efd.global/about/empower-students/

The trouble is that Underwood & Underwood were active after 1922, so I need to date the image. Otherwise, the restoration - and, indeed, the current lead image - could be deleted at any time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , this book dates the image (LoC)as created "before 1931" and "public domain", though I'm not sure that the latter follows from the former, right? (The 1931 might be from this archive, but it doesn't date the photo to 1931—just the connection to the subject of the archive.) I also found another high-res copy at Britannica. In any event, my copyright history is fuzzy, but if the Library of Congress doesn't note a copyright designation on the image, wouldn't it be PD now? Also do you think a different shot of Dewey would be preferable? I can try to track down another photo if you have a suggestion. Appreciate your help, czar  07:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the LoC don't actually allow you to download the image. That's not always a sign of it being in copyright, but it means they haven't checked it. Can I get your views? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't we just have to see if Underwood & Underwood renewed any copyrights on photographs in this time? The company was American (based out of NY), so they would have had to follow American copyright law. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We CAN, but without a year, that's digging through dozens of non-OCR'd documents. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Never said it would be easy. Not sure the quality of the image is worth that sort of effort. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , isn't it OCR'd in Google Books? Not sure what the item would be called though. "Reserve illustrations"?  czar  05:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Photographs. Probably listed under the company's name. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm not finding anything that could fit the bill in my searches. I found a copy of that reserve illustrations book, and it looks like it's stock photography for advertisers (likely wouldn't carry a photo of Dewey or another celebrity). At what point can we say due diligence was done on the photograph? Is there anywhere or anyone else I should check? czar  19:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How many books did you check out? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I did several search variations on "Underwood" and "photograph" in the Google Books link (above). They did not appear to copyright individual photographs, though they were credited with photo illustrations in some books. Not sure how to make the search more systematic, though. czar  00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you could go through the photograph books from year to year. But I think we'd have enough for "due diligence" right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , what do you think? Would you be interested in doing a restoration? It'd be nice to have it for the new article but otherwise I'll let it go czar  16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Missed Chris' comment. Sure, I'll have a go. Let me finish my current project. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , have you had a chance to take a look? Just trying to get a sense of whether current project means the end of this year or next month, etc. czar  13:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I'm in DC for the weekend and decided to stop by the LoC to look into this. The short is (1) I learned a whole lot about their photo collections, which are mostly undigitized and, in some cases, not digitally indexed. (2) They actually have a statement on Underwood & Underwood here—the items registered to the company are out of copyright. (Now that I look, apparently commons:Template:PD-Underwood already said this.) I can swing by again tomorrow if you have any specific questions you'd like me to ask. czar  02:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a houseguest, so I've just been flittering around the slightly easier stuff. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking it, I think I can iprove it, but not feature it. There's a lot of what appear to be attempts to enhance the image in a pre-photoshop age which are terrible when blown up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , ah, that's a shame. And it wouldn't help to go back to the original? My understanding is that it was used as a press image. czar  14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my page.
Please do not delete the Darryl Kurylo page, I spent a lot of time editing it and feel it was absolutely unnecessary for you to delete it because of "Notability"? The guy is a famous American voice actor as evident by his iMDB page. I agree it lacks sources which I will slowly add. But obviously the actor is as well known as other voice actors whose pages remain on wikipedia like Daran Norris, Roger L. Jackson, etc. so please don't delete it rather add the appropriate note at the top to provide sources.DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have also deleted the Rick Pasqualone page. Baring in mind a lot of articles link there I advise this to be unwise as well. The actor is obviously a lot more famous than other articles on here which you have left remaining. Please change it back.DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, we only keep pages that show significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I don't see that for Kurylo. If you have sources from major outlets that will meet the reliability requirements, great—add them. But if you don't we should either redirect or delete the page. czar  21:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well please allow time for me to add them, he's a well known actor, more so than other pages that you've allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Frankly I think it's rather ludicrous that you allow a made up video game character to remain on the Wikipedia but an actual actor is not acceptable?DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (I don't know what you're referencing, but I'm not exactly known for campaigning to keep video game character articles...) As the saying goes around here, "other stuff exists"—if you see other articles that need to be deleted or redirected or edited, we get to each in time (or you're welcome to nominate/cleanup them yourself), but it doesn't mean we don't uphold any standards. Feel free to do your thing, though I recommend running the sources past someone before you spend the time writing out the prose. Looking at your talk page, I see you've already received several warnings about using unreliable sources. It may be that the pages you're looking to add to Wikipedia are best off on another wiki. Take care, czar  21:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well please allow time for me to add more sources, but surely the more data on Wikipedia the better, right?DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. We care about good and useful data, not indiscriminate data. See "what Wikipedia is not" czar  21:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you source an actor? Looking at the Roger L. Jackson page he seems to have very few sources as it is? DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources is a good place to start. I'd also recommend the video game reliable sources custom Google search for vetted sources (some non-game industry magazines are not included in that search). Here is a list of voice actor articles that have been reviewed for quality. I personally would look into redirecting/deleting the Jackson article, myself. Having a major voice acting role doesn't necessarily mean that reporters find your life important enough to document. czar 22:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sleek Kitchens
Hi Czar! I see that you deleted my page - Sleek Kitchens. As per the discussion on the deletion page, I did modify many of the references to include content from mainstream media platforms. Additionally, as you can see on the articles for deletion page, the page was not nominated for deletion based on content, but on quality of references, which are clearly improved. I am wondering, could you please point to any specific reason as to why the page was deleted in spite of me making the necessary changes? Thanks! Sportonion555 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Sleek Kitchens Hi, the consensus of the discussion was to delete. The other participants were not convinced of the topics notability even with the new sources added. I would take up your source questions with them. I glanced at the sources too (to verify that there was no gross miscarriage of justice) and did not find the sources sufficient enough to intervene. We don't keep articles just because their references improved but based on whether available references show sustained interest from reliable sources such that we can write an encyclopedia article without descending into unreliable and primary sources. czar  09:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He's listed it at deletion review. —Cryptic 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Gigantic (2018 film)
Hello czar! Please move or better histmerge Draft:Gigantic (2018 film) → Gigantic (2018 film) — Draft is a better version and I didn't know when the mainspace article was created, so I think it would take your time. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , that page has a longer edit history, so it's best off to merge your draft's edits there. (I can't histmerge because the timeline isn't a clean cut.) czar  09:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought so. So, is you have to merge draft's edits there or can I do that? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can, just make sure to attribute what content is yours, especially if you end up deleting the draft. czar  11:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah got it. Can't you just histmerge draft edits from August 24-October 21, 2014 and then today's? Leave the in-between edits in the draft. (Just an idea) -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , the idea is to not make swiss cheese of the edit history (which should be continuous wherever possible), but I think it's fair to histmerge the old edits since they were the pre-existing draft. (✓ done) You can merge the rest and expand the main article as works best for you czar  00:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie and other
Hello again! Please move Draft:The Emoji Movie → The Emoji Movie and Draft:Okja (film) → Okja — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ did the latter but not the former (don't see where The Emoji Movie meets NFF) czar  00:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does Gigantic (2018 film) meet NFF? These animated films are usually in-production at their studios especially when their release dates are near (one or two years away). So, please move Draft:The Emoji Movie → The Emoji Movie — And thanks for histmerging. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 04:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That article was already mainspaced though—it wasn't about NFF. I just moved The Emoji Movie as if it were a simple G6 request but just wanted to note its lack of production info, as I know you're familiar with NFF and I'd rather spare any pre-emptive bother. I'm sure you can handle it from here though czar  13:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, man. And thanks for be there always. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Draft:Tinkerbell (film)
Hello again! Need to merge Draft:Tink (film) → Draft:Tinkerbell (film) — Which a user just created instead of moving it, to rename the draft. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No need now. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your move of SNK Playmore --> SNK
Please note that SNK Playmore has not officially changed their name, corporate or otherwise. According to their official press release, they have merely changed their corporate logo: http://www.snkplaymore.co.jp/us/press/pdf/160425_1.pdf According to their website: http://www.snkplaymore.co.jp/us/company/, and all of the latest updates and copyright notes they still call themselves "SNK Playmore" in text. I don't think there has been grounds to change the article name as you did as a result. This matter is being widely misreported, as such I can see the cause for confusion - but I think the page move to SNK is premature and the move should be reverted. Darkhunger (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , we follow what the reliable sources say, and they're saying that the company has rebranded. If you want to contest the move, I suggest developing a consensus on the talk page, but if you insist, I'll revert the mood and start the discussion myself. I think the sources are clear enough that I don't see why it would be contested, though. SNK Playmore still redirects there as a historical name. czar  20:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okja
Hello! Please move Okja (film) → Okja — cut-pasted to rename the article. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  20:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Blast Corps
Hi Czar,

I recently wrote the article Briarcliff Library, and submitted it to FAC, where I'm afraid it might not receive enough attention in time. I would really like if you could make comments; in turn, I'd like to review your FAC, in a quid pro quo manner. Thanks so much. ɱ (talk · vbm  · coi) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm swamped right now but this one's short enough that I might be able to take a quick look this weekend. Ping me on Friday if you're still in need? czar  20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do still need help, if you can. Thank you. ɱ  (talk · vbm  · coi) 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm back at the grind but you can try me next weekend czar  17:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Youtube Uploads to Commons
How are you transferring files from Youtube to Commons? I think you're doing some sort of manual re-encoding? File:Dark Souls III - Launch Trailer.webm is VP8/Vorbis and is 116MB. The original on Youtube, in H.264 is only 69MB.

I use the Complete Youtube Saver extension for Firefox. You can download the source video from Youtube in their highest quality free format transcode, which in this case is a VP9/Opus webm file which comes in at 49MB. - hahnch e n 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I use video2commons whenever possible, which is automatic. It defaults to VP8 and its implementation of VP9/Opus is experimental—my impression was that the VP9 issues were upstream, as it bugged out every time I tried it. I haven't done a direct download+convert in a while—I usually use Miro for local converts but plan on using videoconvert in the future. That extension looks great, though. Thanks for sharing and for your help in the WTVG thread czar  11:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about logos
Since you worked on the Polygon article, I got a question about logos. Specifically one for Crispy Gamer. I'm interested in working on it due to its sudden rise and fall but since its defunct, I have no clue about getting its logo at this time. I know an old Joystiq article has one but I'm wondering if this also fits into Commons. GamerPro64 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This one works. You can use the Upload Wizard in the Wikipedia menu to upload a "non-free use logo" and it'll feed you the prompts. I think the icon is a little too original to qualify as in the public domain for Commons (i.e., too simple for copyright), but let's get 's opinion czar  23:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything else I can just upload their logo as fair use, right? GamerPro64  14:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya, that's what I'd recommend here. The rule (generally) is to allow a fair use image to illustrate a topic when no free use replacement could possibly exist. czar  14:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Starpoint Gemini Warlords
Hi Czar,

You deleted the page Starpoint Gemini Warlords based on G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) and referred to the following press release. I'm assuming that you deleted the page based on the "features" section that is mentioned in this press release. I'd like to point out that this feature list was taken from the official Steam product page that was also listed as external link on the wiki page. Please re-accept the page if this was the issue or elaborate why the page was deleted so I can take it into account for next time.

Thanks.

WikiNiels13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNiels13 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , whether text is copied from a press release or the developer's site, it's still a copyright violation (and plagiarism) to use their text without their license. I suggest reading through the examples at Paraphrase and working on articles through Articles for Creation. czar  14:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD You Closed
Years ago... Spider Monkey Optimization, deleted at Articles for deletion/Spider Monkey Optimization. Just checking with you to see if the content is the same as the deleted version, since you have the sorcery. Thanks, Crow  Caw  20:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✨✨🔮 They're differently phrased (no speedy) but similarly incomprehensible, especially for a generalist encyclopedia. Smells like AfD to me  czar  21:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Alita: Battle Angel
Hello czar! Please take a look at Alita: Battle Angel, first it doesn't meet WP:NFF, second if it can be kept in mainspace under WP:GNG, then do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Alita: Battle Angel into this one. If it doesn't meet the criteria then do a HISTMERGE of Alita: Battle Angel into the Draft:Alita: Battle Angel. Please discuss before stepping ahead, thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , while someone could, I doubt anyone is going to contest it being in mainspace. I'd histmerge the two. czar  15:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll do HISTMERGE, keeping the draft article or the mainspace article? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Histmerge keeps both. The only edit that would be dropped is the mainspace placeholder before the expansion. And then you can merge in some of the previous text from the history. czar  08:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, do it. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  17:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why was this histmerge necessary? Histmerges are supposed to only be used for attribution purposes related to copyright - since the current article didn't use any of the text from the draft, the history of the article is now misleading, to say the best.


 * What's more,, wouldn't it be common courtesy to ping me before requesting this, since I had previously expressed opposition to the idea? G S Palmeralt (main • talk) 21:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi GS, the histmerge is for attribution history, as the pre-existing public draft's work was to merge with the new version anyway, so it's a matter of whether it's useful to keep a separate page just to use for attribution. Better to work from the same history if there is indeed any continuity—and there is—even if there is a single disjuncture (as that's how every rewrite works). I apologize, though, for not knowing about the other talk page conversation, though I think the logic should be straightforward. czar  00:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos Image
Hello czar, regarding File:Lordsofchaos2.png, the email from Julian Gollop stating that his old games were now public domain is hosted at World of Spectrum (, the "details" link), but is currently not accessible. In the meantime, does fair usage still cover low-resolution video game screenshots? (It's been a while since I've been involved with that side of things) Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, yep, you could convert it to low-res fair use if need be (see Non-free use rationale video game screenshot and Non-free game screenshot). I vaguely recall trying to confirm the permission with Gollop in years past but not getting through. I haven't found solid proof or an official word online other than hearsay. czar  21:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GFW Roster
Hi. I saw you deleted the Global Force Wrestling personnel. At the deletion, I also request for the Template:Global Force Wrestling personnel. As the result was delete, can you delete the template as well? Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I noticed that—I'd recommend sending that through WP:TfD just in case someone wants to repurpose it or something czar  00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Vive Games List
Hi czar. I got your message regarding deletion of my entries if I do not add "secondary sources." I would like to question the rationale for this. What is the point of citing secondary sources for a list of products produced by companies? If Hasbro produces a toy I would link to the Hasbro's product page. If Mercedes produced a new car I would link to their product age. Linking to any other source, for a product, may give a biased view of the product. I can understand secondary sources for things others than a simple list of products, but seeing as that is all this is why are secondary sources needed to prove the existence of these products? If that is indeed the argument.Spec24 (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I left you two messages after you didn't respond to the first one. We are an encyclopedia of reliable, secondary sources. Anyone can throw up a site saying they're developing for the HTC Vive, but the backing of a reliable, secondary source shows that the entry is noteworthy for inclusion. It really isn't hard to do with the video game reliable sources custom Google search and it saves everyone else a lot of cleanup later. If Mercedes/Hasbro released new products, you should link to the secondary source coverage, not their websites, as secondary sources have a level of editorial distance and control (especially re: claims) that the manufacturers do not. The self-published sources guideline explains more on how we use primary sources. czar  20:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources Delete them if you wantSpec24 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pablo Zibes
User:Otto-muell has asked for a deletion review of Pablo Zibes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 09:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled Wolverine sequel
Hello czar! Will you please take a look at the histories of Untitled Wolverine sequel and Untitled Wolverine film? moved Untitled Wolverine sequel to Draft:Untitled Wolverine sequel and it was supposed to be moved in the mainspace but instead he copy-pasted from draft on May 9, 2016. Now I would suggest to move Untitled Wolverine sequel to Untitled Wolverine third film to make a way and then remove the redirect from Untitled Wolverine film and move it to Untitled Wolverine sequel. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did something. Hope it's good. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , what a mess. I suggest leaving it as it is, with the cut-and-paste move redirected to the main page. If the other editors really want, there might be some means to histmerge the edits, but they mostly overlap so it isn't practical to histmerge. If there is consensus on the talk page to rename from film to sequel or whatever, the admin handling the move will be able to shuffle the pages around. It looks like you merged in some of the content from the cut-and-paste separate page—please do remember to attribute that content in your edit summary (more like "merged content from Untitled Wolverine sequel", or even link the specific page revision if that name might move, instead of just "updated"). czar  13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, got it. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So can we get rid of "Untitled Wolverine film" as it has no place here since there's already a page that has all that information that I updated since someone wanted to merge April and May as the same date? lol. what. Also, we don't know if the film is based off of Old Man Logan just yet. Let's wait for official confirmation on that front before saying it's based off it when we really don't know either way. We can assume it is off the comments made by Jackman and Stewart, but we're jus assuming that based off their comments, and nothing is official. Npamusic (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Felt (film)
Hello! Please move Draft:Felt (film) → Felt (film) — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  15:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OpenBSD
I have nominated OpenBSD for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Annihilation (film)
Hello czar! Please move Draft:Annihilation (film) → Annihilation (film) — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Hello! Please move Draft:Kingsman: The Golden Circle → Kingsman: The Golden Circle — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Amiibo ref
Hola, amiigo. Hey brother, I saw that you'd just submitted a ref idea, but I'd already put that reference in that article a long time ago. FYI. Also, that spinning grid globe is mad sweet. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 01:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oof, thanks. I had searched for the publication's name without the space. Feel free to just remove the ref next time, but at least you got to appreciate the globe czar  02:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Transformers: The Last Knight
Hello! Please move Draft:Transformers: The Last Night → Draft:Transformers: The Last Knight — Official title. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done all czar  06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Angeles (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For posterity: the discussion closed as unfounded. czar  21:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

EQEmu
Hi, you removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EQEmu&oldid=675956963 I'm not sure what is wrong this the content there? References do exist. I agree it's not a great article, but removing it altogether seems way over the top. Thank you --mafutrct (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, see my edit summary, which links to the relevant policies. czar  16:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The article surely can be improved, but do you really think it is better to remove it altogether instead of adding in an improvement box? Right now, WP has nothing to offer on this topic, which I guess is fairly notable, judging from a quick google search.

I've never played EQ nor used EQEmu or anything related. I'm asking because I found it by accident (when randomly browsing WP) as a link within the EQ article, which did not work, prompting me to investigate. It is very difficult for me to understand how "probably ok"-level content can just be removed instead of simply demarcated, which would offer the authors the _possibility_ to improve it. At least I would feel _extremely_ discouraged from ever working on that article again if that happened to me. --mafutrct (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, Wikipedia requires articles to have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) —the sources in the article, and all I could find, were primary or otherwise not independent (i.e., not "probably okay"). If you have such sources, feel free to revert the redirect and add them, but if the redirect is reverted and there continues to be no sign of eligible sources, the page will go up for deletion. As for the possibility of improvement, it sat for a decade in that decrepit state—if someone is going to be hypothetically disappointed it should be about the subject not receiving significant coverage in that time. czar  20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Uhura Edit War
A couple editors are fighting over what seems to me a simple issue. One continually puts the weasel words "perhaps coincidentally" into a line in the article. As I understand it, such should not be allowed, as we must state facts here. When this is reverted, he puts it back. Would you take a look? Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar  17:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A request for comment you answered
Hey. You recently responded to a request for comment here. Talk has since gone onto how to rewrite the sections in question, and I'd appreciate your input there once more on the proposed gameplay sections, but also on the "removed features" section. Eik Corell (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar  17:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Raceroom edits
Thx for helping to fix the article. you moved it from raceroom to RaceRoom. Are you able to move it into "RaceRoom Racing Experience"? Many thanks in advance, best reguards Mr.Hardy69 (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2016
 * I can, but my understanding was that the page would house information related to the several RaceRoom games, not just RRE. In any event, I didn't see enough information on the titles to maintain a full article, hence the redirect to the developer. czar  23:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

the page is about R3E. no other game. would be nice, if you will rename it to "RaceRoom Racing Experience". thx in advance, best reguards Mr.Hardy69 (talk) 13:26, 02 June 2016
 * , even still, the one reliable, secondary source that discusses the game refers to it as just "RaceRoom", so that would be its common name. I've redirected RaceRoom Racing Experience there. Do you have any more significant coverage for the game from multiple reliable, independent sources (?) If not, the article should be redirected or deleted. czar  15:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

World of Mixed Martial Arts
It may be worth taking a look at this article. It is by the same creator as Wrestling Spirit. - Safetine (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks—the games weren't widely reviewed so I redirected the article's title to the developer. czar  14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thank you for your contributions
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

A barnstar for helping us to fix the gender gap
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Re:Overwatch Characters
Hey thank you for the talk page message. Yeah of the remaining characters that don't have an individual article yet I think Winston, D.Va, Soldier: 76, and possibly Reaper are the only ones that can currently pass off for having one. I am working on one for Winston as much as I can right now actually. Also thanks for your two notes, I'll be trying to use as reliable sources as possible, and try to keep the articles as out-of-universe in tone as I can. Thank you :) Soulbust (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Move request
Can you please perform this move (per RM discussion):
 * Benué State → Benue State

Thanks. &mdash; Music1201  talk  05:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  06:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Asian Youth Games articles
Hi, may I ask based on which discussion you are redirecting all 2013 AYG pages to the main page ? I found only this Articles for deletion/Bhutan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games which was OK since the article was almost empty, but what about the rest ? some of them are not empty and that discussion was about that Bhutan Article being empty not the rest of them. Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I noticed there are much more deletion discussons but still all of them about empty articles, still you did redirect all of them, may I see if there was a discussion about all of them at all ?
 * I only redirected the remaining handful from the navbox. You have to establish a case for why each country needs its own breakout article, which none of the articles did. (Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), etc.) czar  13:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you need to establish a case why you think they didn't need its own article ? those article did exist and you think they are not necessarily, then you have to open case like those. I highly doubt you even checked each one of them, since you redirected them in less than a minute. Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on the editor adding content to prove the need for its inclusion. You're welcome to revert whatever you wish, but I think it would be more productive to avoid AfD, actually cover each country in the main 2013 Asian Youth Games article, and only split out summary style. As for your presumptions, I check in advance and act as a group. But while you're casting aspersions, why don't you offer yourself the same skepticism, or even better, not cast aspersions. czar  13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Requests
Hello, Czar! Thank you very much for your recommendations for improving Wikipedia Requests. In fact I saw earlier that you tried to implement it on WikiProject Video Games, but you concluded that it wasn't ready for primetime. (I agree completely—and I made the thing!) Any suggestions on how to make the system easier to use would always be appreciated, including anything that prevented you from using it as the primary request logging system for your WikiProject.

Incidentally, do you have any thoughts on building this system into Wikipedia itself? There are upsides and downsides to each approach. Building it into Wikipedia makes it easier for the tool to make use of infrastructure in Wikipedia, including the category system, and also stuff we take for granted like deleting and blocking. But keeping it as a standalone app lets us be more flexible in how we implement it, and we don't have to worry so much about how it will fit in with the rest of the codebase or Wikipedia's user experience. I'd like to make the decision on this sooner rather than later, since it would affect how much effort I put into the app as it currently exists.

Cheers, Harej (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for reaching out. My main concern would be that the tool becomes a dumping ground or kind of graveyard for names, because then it would just be a more accessible version of the current Requested articles (in that requesters would not have to learn wikicode, though that brief learning process should encourage the requester to join the community...) I think a heavier emphasis should be put on guiding requesters to add reliable, secondary/independent sources (and explain what that means) such that the article already writes itself, and perhaps even an original statement from each source. Like AfC-lite. I would think that other editors would be more receptive to actually filling the requests when the work has been started and handed to them, and I think this would be a better introduction (invitation?) to the wiki movement for requesters. (Granted, this all sounds more like a tutorial than a requests board, but I'm considering the overall design and intention.) Secondarily, there is the problem of maintaining a second tool, regarding both code (how many Wikipedia code projects have fallen into disarray) and editor (I think of the AfC backlog issues a few years ago). Does building it into Mediawiki ensure that someone at the Foundation will maintain it? If so, that's the way to go, no matter the limitations. In my own way, I think what would be most useful is an accessible interface for gathering sources under a topic name even when an article doesn't exist (such that the sources are there if someone wanted to make an article on the topic in the future) but that would be an expansion of Wikipedia's scope beyond that of an encyclopedia (into bibliographies), but I'd argue that Wikipedia is poised to provide a great service in being the bibliographic center of the Internet. I digress... I think it's fair to ask requesters for more than a name but an attempt at a short bibliography of sources—expecting that they know the sources better than us—or even a short article (AfC-lite) for the best experience all around. If that sounds interesting but slightly outside Wikipedia's scope, maybe it is the job for an external tool. If you want more concrete suggestions on parts of the tool as it currently works, just let me know. czar  23:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I do agree there should be an increased emphasis on sourcing, particularly for requests involving new articles or adding content to articles. I am interested in adding another field for references that ties in to Citoid, as we discussed on Phabricator. While I don't think it would be feasible to require sources, having a field specifically for references would allow someone to filter out requests that don't already have references. This would result in the experience you are looking for.
 * As for WMF support, building it as a MediaWiki extension does not guarantee WMF staff maintenance. I am doing whatever I can to help make sure this tool works in the long run, but there is no magic bullet. To the extent we're entertaining building an extension as an option, the question is: do we get a better tool out of doing so? (One specific thing I have in mind is notifications. I would love to be able to ping people who leave requests, and I imagine you would too. The most straightforward way to do that would be using the built-in notifications system that MediaWiki has. One downside, however, is how different the interface is compared to the rest of Wikipedia, including its similarities to the discussion system that shall not be named.) Harej (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , more details? What page (Autosports India)? What sources?  czar  09:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
I noticed you reverted my edit on WikiProject Video games/Sources. While I realize why you did it, I wanted you to notice the reason I made the edit. The talk page says "When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site.  If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward." I believed I was following the guideline there. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but I actually reverted my edit right afterwards since it's been discussed before czar  00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed. I hadn't realized it had been discussed before. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Would this be too soon for an article?
I wish to create a short stub-like article for the new game Finding Paradise but it may be too soon for it. It's received a lot of reliable coverage, IGN, PC Gamer, Engadget (2nd), RPS, Destructoid, etc have covered the game. A google search brings up a nice amount of articles. I think it'd be fine but I'd like someone with more experience to validate the thought.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes and no. All of those sources (save for the one about the mini-game) are from the Jan 12 announcement—they're all short and basically repeating that the next game is coming, some add speculation and expectations. You could probably write a paragraph. If it went to AfD, it'd likely go to draft. It'll be notable in the future but we're not a crystal ball. Alternatively, you can write the paragraph from the sources and merge it to the dev article, Freebird Games. And if more sources arise, you can merge it back or restore from the page history, etc. czar  08:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll create a paragraph in the dev page, for now. I created a longer list of possible sources at User:Anarchyte/sources, if that would be useful.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * mcvuk is good. Most of those sources would be good in a Legacy section for To the Moon too czar  09:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've redirected Finding Paradise to Freebird Games. I might expand it if I find more in-depth sources.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2 requests
Please protect Enfield Poltergeist and revoke talk page access for user:176.92.139.62. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D123:DF0:F8CF:38DC (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I protected the page since there was IP-hopping vandalism. Let me know if it continues when the protection expires czar  03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please revoke talk page access for user:176.92.139.62. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D123:DF0:F8CF:38DC (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * KK beat me to it czar  03:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception sections
Hello again. In the peer review for Fallout 4: Far Harbor you mentioned how the reception section was a bit muddled/disjointed. How should I rewrite it, could you provide some examples of good, well-written reception sections? Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a few ideas at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive1 so the discussion can stay in the same place. Blast Corps is an article I wrote that recently became featured—it does a decent job of telling the story of the game's reception with a semblance of order, if you're interested. The gameplay paragraph is the weakest because it tries to do too much, but the rest is good. czar  15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother...
Just wanted to make sure you saw my most recent ping, to move Draft:Spider-Man: Homecoming to the main space today. Thanks again for all the help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , yep, was just waiting for "tomorrow" (though it's always better to just ping exactly when you need it)—✓ done czar  16:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. It is "tomorrow" (6/20) for me. Always forget others may not be on my timezone. So here's the "exactly when I need it" request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, man. I didn't know you were back until now. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

God Particle (film)
Hello again! Please move Draft:God Particle (film) → God Particle (film) — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar  17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

More on OpenCritic
Still trying to figure out the benchmark for "authority" vs "not."

Arstechnica used us as a source today: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/what-can-we-learn-from-mighty-no-9s-troubled-launch/

We have significantly more Twitter engagement for Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE than Metacritic. (Metacritic tweets, OpenCritic tweets).

Also, please let me know if these messages are invasive or not helpful. I'm a very weak engineer and thus my job with the OpenCritic team is mostly interfacing and spreading our accomplishments. I really respect you and your coeditors opinions on OpenCritic - the feedback has been invaluable even if we haven't produced action on each point. MattEnth (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , if I were to search for the standard video game industry review aggregator, all relevant hits are about Metacritic, with some press about OpenCritic as a new alternative—that's what would need to change. This is to say that, barring some sort of open access activism that Wikipedia occasionally does, we follow rather than lead the narrative of the sources. As a tertiary source, the sea change needs to happen in the secondary sources (the reliable ones) before we adopt then adopt their new standard as our standard. So the moment to call our attention will be when multiple reliable sources write either in passing or in feature about OpenCritic as a standard. (Links like those in Ars may be progress towards such a sea change, but I'll note that Ars also linked to Metacritic and to all sorts of other sites without implying endorsement or authority.)
 * Two other quick design thoughts while we're here: (1) It would be hard to use the "mighty"/"strong"/"fair"/"weak" designations in a sentence. E.g., "The game received 'mighty' reviews, according to video game review aggregator OpenCritic" or "Video game review aggregator OpenCritic characterized the game's critical response as 'mighty/strong (doesn't mean much). But "Video game aggregator OpenCritic wrote that four percent critics recommended this game." That's useful. That it was among the aggregator's lowest scored (bottom 10%) games? Useful. Also, again, I think you have a big opportunity in providing some descriptive statistics on the score spread. By the way, about a decade ago, at least in New York State, the fire code changed so the gels in the EXIT emergency signs went from the color red to the color green. Even though red may be associated with passion, it is also our universal sign for "no" or "stop". So to display your scale with "mighty" in red and "weak" appears to be a design error—it should be the other way around. (2) In my opinion, there's way too much going on in the header image between the transparent background and tons of stuff on top of it. czar  17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thought: Discrete categories betray the idea of ratings being a spectrum. It isn't like 74 is "fair" while 75 is "strong"—simple averages are susceptible to outliers and other sorts of gaming, especially when you're planning to add amateur scores in the mix (give me pause but that's another story). But with statistics, you can make the "rating" more robust. What does 74 or fair say when you could have, "middling reviews from journalists, with few extreme outliers, and exceptional praise from amateur reviewers" etc. And then what about the outliers? Do they share a preference based on platform/nationality/genre/experience? My understanding of the criticism of Metacritic was (1) the unknown weighting given to various outlet scores, and in my opinion the bigger criticism, (2) that a score should not define whether people buy a game or not. The Rotten Tomatoes "percent recommended" metric solves a bit of the latter, or at least makes it palatable, but the descriptive stats that explain how the data ranges would be even better towards solving open criticism. czar  00:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Twilight Zone
An editor has blanked every episode summary of The Twilight Zone (2002 series). I reverted one and asked that he discuss it on the ep's talk page, but he has not. Here is the link to his redirect. Should one editor take it upon himself to blank all of these articles, simply because he feels they are not notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It%27s_Still_a_Good_Life&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Rhosis (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 June 2016‎ (UTC)
 * , where did you ask DTG to discuss the edit? I see your revert and edit summary, but I don't see a talk page message in your edit history. One editor can unilaterally redirect episodes they feel are non-notable (Be bold), but that said, they should also desist if anyone has any issue with that (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) so it can go to discussion. Reverting back and forth (edit warring) doesn't get much of anywhere otherwise. And WP:ALLPLOT isn't a mandate, though I suggest having sources if you're looking to keep the article—otherwise the discussion will likely die at Articles for Deletion on its current sourcing


 * I think you're referring to DTG's few dozen redirects of what was once in Template:Twilight Zone 2002 episodes (restored above). It pushes the edge of Be bold to redirect several dozen articles wholesale, but in their defense, every one of these articles appears to be plot summary with no rationale or sources for needing a separate episode article (which is to say that anything that needs to be said about the subject based on its sourcing can be covered in the main series article). That said, there could still be a few that had sources that were redirected, but someone would need to contest those redirects. I recommend having that discussion at Talk:The Twilight Zone (2002 TV series). czar  19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into this. When I reverted his redirect I commented something to the effect of "Why was this done without a discussion beforehand" or words to that effect.  Sir Rhosis (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor?
There doesn't seem to be a Zotero translator for HighBeam Research (https://www.highbeam.com). If it's not much trouble, would you file a request for that for me? It's used by a number of Wikipedia editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done https://github.com/zotero/translators/issues/1088 I might be able to do it myself, but other projects to squash first czar  17:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I now get to take "figure out how to request something on Github" off my list, and User:Fluffernutter might get to use HighBeam links in VisualEditor someday.  :-)  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I took a quick look at it, and the Embedded Metadata (EM) translator appears to be doing a decent job:




 * The rest of the formatting stuff, like that parentheses mishmash, is on HB's side, not Zotero's. (EM is the default when there is no custom translator.) And then, on Citoid's end,  could be converted to  . Do you have examples of metadata that EM misses?  czar  19:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The example I was given is this: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23197647.html  It gives me the title, the date, and nothing else.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that a translator exists (EM) but it isn't active in Citoid if you're not able to produce citations like I just did. The solution for now is to use Zotero with that HighBeam page and then export the citation—that's the only way to get the EM translator. I started a thread at mw:Topic:T6oy6qtqfh6rce76 to find out why EM isn't active in Citoid. czar  23:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

highbeam
Traveling now but will check in a day or three. About zoster pls ask ocaasi or nikkimaria. Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , no rush but thanks for the heads up czar  21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Books (general discussion)
We had some disagreements about some merges I proposed, so I'd like to see to what extent we agree (talking now about non-literary authors)
 * For a really famous person in a field, where this is generally acknowledged, (eg Darwin, Kant, Marx) I think we can and should list all their major books, ns make separate articles about those that are particularly noteworthy where there are more than routine sources.
 * For the leading famous person in a field, we should make separate articles for the principal most quoted books, which will usually be rather few.
 * For a clearly notable but not famous person, we should only make an article for a book if it is is so important it will be widely known to those who may not even know specifically of the author.

I can see varying this down a step towards greater inclusivity, but I do not se the point of making a separate article for every book where it would be theoretically justified.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm planning to write articles about each of these books, and I only started articles because I found a preponderance of sources to justify an article. At least now with the sources out in the open—the bibliographic work being half the battle for pre-Internet books—someone could feasibly take an interest in one of the topics. I usually need little convincing that a topic can be sufficiently covered in its parent and only split out if necessary, but in the case of reception for separate, independent works, I don't think it makes sense to merge these sources back to the author. As for Paul Avrich not being a "really famous person in a field"... Avrich is the foremost historian of anarchism. The only reason I can find so many sources for his books is because his books were widely reviewed and well regarded. I have plenty of sources for other authors' lesser known books, but I don't bother making articles unless I know there is sufficient sourcing worth the while.  czar  05:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He's as important to anarchism as darwin is to biology? that's thelevel I think necessary. I do not see the usefulness-- The   nature of the reception of an individual book  will depend primarily on his ideas,    though of course they will get individual reviews as a matter of course, so elaborate content could be written.  If a person wants to find out about one book, they would certainly be interested in finding out about the others, even if they hadn't known about them in advance.   DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's as important to the history-of-anarchism as Darwin is to biology. I'm sympathetic to your point of view and I have my own thoughts on our inadequately low notability threshold, but as for the proposal (1) at first blush, it treats media unevenly—it's not like we're going to look at albums, games, etc. under the same light of "usefulness", and (2) even still, these articles will have better sourcing than the vast majority of the book articles we keep at AfD. The interest is curious, given the lax standards throughout the encyclopedia. (3) There's also a bit of systemic bias. An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre was published in 1978. It's significantly harder to find sources from that era than it is to search for a book from the last twenty years. If anything, I think we should be encouraging more unearthing of print sources, which are otherwise dead to the Internet (and so on to popular history). I'd see a reader being interested in this individual book, for example, separate from their interest in the rest of Avrich's work. czar  21:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Lego Ninjago Movie
Hello czar! Please do the histmerge of Draft:The Lego Ninjago Movie → The Lego Ninjago Movie — Then I'll be doing a major expansion to mainspace article. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I histmerged the even earlier draft at Ninjago (film) and moved your draftspace draft to its location, in case you wanted those edits preserved. (The draftspace draft had conflicting edit histories.) czar  06:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The collapsible lists IP user
This user is still making controversial edits, such as removing reliably sourced release dates and replacing them with other, unsourced ones, and changing date formats from DMY to MDY. They don't seem to be understanding of the importance of citing sources or following consensus, which is troubling.--IDVtalk 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In case Czar isn't active right now.... Looks like this may be our repeat date vandal you've had to repeatedly block on other IPs, Serge. Same style, uses a leading 0 for single digit dates, or changing the day to "31". -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks. Hopefully they'll let up, but Serge, if you have more experience with LTA cases, I'll let you take the lead if it gets to that czar  18:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly help if need be, but my "experience" is really just me continually blocking IP/block evaders for months on end because I or my s notice them across our watchlists. Its really just persistence, not a particular skill set, that I have, haha. Sergecross73   msg me  19:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You are just a control freak. You should do more important stuff like making new wiki pages. That person wont stop! Ever. It needs to be done this way and they are too many things that you or anyone else that thinks like you can correct. just look at the Wii games. Now stop harassing and blocking people. The change has already been okayed and just please get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissWooof (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It (2017 film)
Hello! Another favor, please do a histmerge of Draft:It (2017 film) → It (2017 film) — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Day 6
Hi Czar! You seem like the person to ask, can you move Draft:Day 6 (film) to Day 6 (film) now that filming has started? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  01:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sikarwar
Hi, Czar, thank you for closing the AfD and deleting the talk page. Is the article in the process of being deleted too or did it not work? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note—must have had a script error. Fixed now czar  17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Viva Piñata (video game)/GA1
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Viva Piñata (video game)/GA1. , the co-nom for the article, is on a Wikibreak (and requested to be blocked) so it's up to you to fix the issues. Thanks. Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the note. I'll take a look czar  17:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your scan, sir: . It's from page 90, the executive editor and associate editor for reviews in this issue are Ryan Scott and Nick Suttner respectively, the ISSN is 1058-918X, and feel free to ask for any other details about this specific ref that I may have forgotten. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , it looks like it's attributed to "Anthony"—do you have a last name for him? czar  19:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's Anthony Gallegos. -Thibbs (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anarchyte/Monaco
Hi, could you please move User:Anarchyte/Monaco to Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine and do a histmerge? I will continue to work on it in mainspace. Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  09:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  09:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viva Piñata (video game)
The article Viva Piñata (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viva Piñata (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ready Player One (film) and other
Hello Czar! Please, can you do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Ready Player One (film) → Ready Player One (film)..? And please move Draft:Frozen 2 → Frozen 2. — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , it turned out better to preserve the edit histories in now redirected pages but in any event, ✓ done czar  00:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 22, 2016
Hi Czar, this is one of yours ... how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think you might mean Today's featured article/July 22, 2016, and if so, looks good—thanks! czar  00:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: was it the first 2D side-scrolling game for the Nintendo 64, or the first side-scrolling (platform) game for the Nintendo 64? - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , according to IGN, yes, and IGN is the foremost video game review website. See the first sentence of
 * czar 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there a 3D side-scrolling game that predated it? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "3D" and "side-scrolling" are generally incompatible because the "side" in side-scrolling indicates a side view, or 2D. Yoshi's Story, similar to Mischief Makers, is a "2½D" side-scroller in that it uses images that appear to be 3D, though the game plays as a side-scroller. But that came later in 1997. I went through the list of Nintendo 64 games, which is what I assumed you wanted if IGN wasn't enough for the claim, and the only other platformers were 3D platformers, not 2D: Super Mario 64 (preceded MM in 1996), Doraemon: Nobita to Mittsu no Seireiseki (preceded in March 1997), Chameleon Twist (followed MM in Nov 1997), and maybe Bomberman 64 (more of an action-adventure than a platformer, still not 2D, Sept 1997). Of course, this is original research, but it still confirms IGN's claim. czar  17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. I wasn't challenging the accuracy; I was trying to figure out if I could combine two sentences to avoid repetition. If I understand you right, I can, and I have. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your changes are good. My last edit made it tighter but also too short; we need another 100 to 150 characters, if you'd like to add another sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence you added looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a poor exercise of judgment on your part
See Talk:Frozen 2. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I fulfilled a technical request. If you have an issue with it meeting WP:NFF, take it up with the editors and handle it accordingly. It's not on me (or my "judgment") to arbitrate the content dispute over what counts as production (which I'd consider an arcane conversation to begin with—there are obviously enough sources on this topic to satisfy the general notability guideline). czar  18:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Laziness is no excuse for incompetence. If you aren't able or willing to put the effort (it only takes about 10 minutes of sustained concentration) into understanding how film production works in order to adequately comprehend the notability guideline for films, then don't get involved with moving film articles around. It's that kind of attitude that is driving competent editors away from the encyclopedia.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , why don't you just AFD it instead of harassing people. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * cc, you obviously care about the encyclopedia, but I'm afraid you're going about it the wrong way by condescending to get your point across czar  05:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Czar I think we should come to an agreement
Nu-disco is not disco house. For one thing, it has differing artists and requirements. I believe even if DH were being re-branded as nu-disco, disco house ought to still have its own page for the multiple decades it wasn't called nu-disco. However, that isn't the case when considering our conflicting edits. We are not there yet, and I would rather work together than get into an edit war. I know people like to think nothing existed before they were born, but disco and house are from the same root, and disco house has always been around, whereas nu-disco is just that—new. It's like calling one of the original metal genres (hair, glam, death, whatever) "nu-metal". I have seen this happen before. Metalheads are far more fanatical (read: crazybrains), but it doesn't change the fact that Faith No More isn't nu-metal. The thing about genres is everyone is so over-protective. Still, Dimitri From Paris isn't going to be nu-disco in this life, because he's not new or disco. He is disco house. His beats aren't new. The whole "nu" prefix is, imo, indicating something contemporary and fresh. With house this is tricky, as house and disco are so intricately linked and their timelines basically follow one another. It's difficult to sub-classify disco into house because house is a subset of disco. So to put disco house in an even more obscure (yes, OBSCURE) subset is kind of not doing any genre justice. Anyway, disco house, house, and disco were and are above "nu-disco", just like they ought to be. Electro house, glitch house, tech house, etc do not belong alongside disco or disco house. Disco house should have its own page. Although google search counts for almost nothing, there's few cites that nu-disco is disco house, or that disco house is a subset of nu-disco, because, as I said, we aren't there yet: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=nu-disco%2C%20%22disco%20house%22&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B7 I would really like to work together on this, though, because I respect your knowledge of electronic music. What say you? Ongepotchket (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It helps to link to the page/edit in question—otherwise I'm lost. I think you're talking about the page history of disco house, yes? but I've barely had any interaction with the article... In any event, the good news is that this is really easy to resolve—better than reasoning through what does/doesn't compose a genre, you should cite the reliable, secondary sources that show "disco house" as being closer to "house music" than to "nu-house" (which redirects to nu-disco). I don't have a horse in this race, though, apart from the consensus that disco house should not have its own page: Articles for deletion/Disco house (2nd nomination). Please don't recreate the article unless you have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Otherwise it'd be an article full of primary source and untrusted material. Feel free to write a section on the genre within one of the parent articles. czar  00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the old disco house page was inadequate due to lacking sources. But to recreate it with reliable non-primary sources wouldn't be impossible, and it is not as if the nu-disco page doesn't suffer from the same failings. It seems adding information with adequate citations would have been better than deleting it. Unfortunately, nomination for deletion came to a consensus to redirect it to house music, so that is what I've done. Thanks for the prompt reply. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Dark Archives
Hi Czar, I think you unintentionally messed up the Perfect Dark archive pages; now we have Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive1 and Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive 1, and only the first one appears in the archives box of Talk:Perfect Dark. I think the best way to fix this issue is to move the "Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive 1" page to "Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive2" and then update the archives box. Can you please do that? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads up—fixed czar  17:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting our editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Blocked IP user's move requests
Hi Czar,

Perhaps you've already noticed the many move requests. The IP addresses have been blocked, and since most of these have no chance of being moved (D3 Publisher → D3Publisher, Video game genre → Game genre, Prinny 2: Dawn of Operation Panties, Dood! → Prinny2), I was wondering if there is some sort of precedent for this situation; do we have to debate every single issue, or is there a way to deal with this en masse? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why "no chance"? Prinny 2 (per WP:SUBTITLE) and D3Publisher (per their own English-language website) would actually be moves I'd support. I've supported other RMs started by the IP. I don't think they're systematically frivolous or disruptive (except by their quantity, maybe). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concerning D3, that sounds like WP:MOSTM to me, and IGN, Gematsu and Siliconera write D3 Publisher. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, I won't disagree on this one. ;) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLE
But forget what I asked before, since Salvidrim brought it up, is there a way to establish a project-wide consensus on WP:SUBTITLE and how that relates to WP:VG/MOS? Because we keep running into the same issues time and time again. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The last two broad discussions I recall on this topic were for Dragon Quest (here) and King's Quest (here), and both of them resulted in consensus to apply WP:SUBTITLE and use subtitle-less article titles whenever it doesn't hamper disambiguation. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What I would like to see is a project-wide discussion about WP:SUBTITLE, for several reasons. 1) it still is part of WP:BOOKS, but video game articles are just supposed to follow suit? 2) WP:CONSISTENCY says we should try to be consistent in articles titles. King's Quest lost its subtitles, Dragon Quest did not. 3) Our content is based upon what WP:VG/RSes say, and also the titles, (like in the case of D3Publisher/D3 Publisher). But how many reliable sources use MGS4 instead of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? I don't mean to get into a discussion with you two, I want to try and establish a consensus for once. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread the DQ discussion. I suspect most sources call it Metal Gear Solid 4 and not Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. I also think that applying WP:SUBTITLE, a book-related guideline, to WP:VG "as is" is not a good idea and that we should discuss and codify our own way of dealing with subtitles into NCVG. I wish I had more time to invest into formulating a well-thought-out RfC. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've lost track of these discussions myself but two quick points on the whole books/subtitles thing. (1) The subtitles guideline is really just an application of the concision section of the Article titles (policy). In fact, it uses an album's subtitle as the example. (2) "WP:SUBTITLES" is only housed in the books naming conventions because there's no other place for it to go. I'm unclear the point of a WPVG RfC: To decide against using the spirit of that guideline on grounds of jurisdiction? To make a statement somewhere that adds specific language to how video game subtitles should be handled differently those from the rest of the encyclopedia?
 * But more to the point, I think it's easy to get hung up on what constitutes a subtitle instead of how the title is used. Here's an example that gives me pause: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Uncharted 2 are both common names and I think one can even make the argument that the "subtitle" there is—more common than not—used as part of its title (I haven't checked the sources in depth, though). Past the common name, we should look to the naming criteria: which of the two is more recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), concise (not longer than necessary to identify), and consistent (with patterns of other similar article titles). The shorter version, indeed, for all but maybe the last one (consistency), but that is more of a reason to make the rest of the titles consistent with the naming criteria than to defy the rest of the naming criteria for consistency.
 * As it were, I happened to see the IP's proposed moves last night and thought they were fairly innocuous at first brush, but we can close most of them now that the IP is blocked. In the case of "Prinny 2" for example, I can't see the case in which the long subtitle is deemed to better meet the aforementioned naming criteria than the simple "Prinny 2". So would I need to write out the points of the naming criteria each time, like I did above? Or does it suffice to quote from the subtitles guideline, even if it is, as you say, technically within the books naming conventions? czar  17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worth clarifying "Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary and pre-titles should be replaced once an official title has been announced." (Naming conventions (video games)#2) along these lines, even if it's just a reference to the precedence of the subtitles section with respect to the concision part of the titling policy. czar  19:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's my whole point, we can't be both consistent and concise. The King's Quest series do not have subtitles, the Dragon Quest series do. We don't have to follow WP:MOSTM, but we should try to use the WP:COMMONNAME. So why shouldn't we call The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time just Ocarina of Time? We keep running into this issue, and I would like to try and find a well-established consensus for once. Should I try to go by RfC? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes, but let's workshop a little first. What are some other inconsistent examples? MGS4? Chime in, talk page stalkers czar  07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching. :^) --Izno (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple I could come up with:


 * Eternal Darkness vs. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
 * The Elder Scrolls video games all use their subtitles; Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim, etc.
 * Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, despite that there is no other IV entry
 * Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame uses the full title
 * Tomb Raider II vs Tomb Raider II Starring Lara Croft, Tomb Raider III vs Tomb Raider III: Adventures of Lara Croft
 * Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake vs. Metal Gear 2
 * Metal Gear: Ghost Babel vs. Metal Gear Solid (Game Boy Color) (see move discussion)
 * Halo: Combat Evolved vs. Halo (video game), Halo 5: Guardians vs. Halo 5
 * E.V.O.: Search for Eden vs. E.V.O.
 * Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete vs. Minotaur (video game)
 * Hatoful Boyfriend vs. Hatoful Boyfriend: A School of Hope and White Wings
 * Challenge of the Five Realms vs. Challenge of the Five Realms: Spellbound in the World of Nhagardia
 * God Wars: Beyond Time vs. God Wars (or God Wars (video game))

Also, what about video games that are based upon another franchise, in which the subtitle is the actual core name of the title? If we need to be concise and use the common name, I'm sure that websites and magazines just use the subtitle.

soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War vs. Dawn of War
 * Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri vs. Alpha Centauri (video game) - no other Alpha Centauri (disambiguation) Alpha Centauri video games
 * James Bond 007: Blood Stone vs. Blood Stone
 * Most of the Star Wars games: Star Wars: Super Bombad Racing vs. Super Bombad Racing, Star Wars: Flight of the Falcon vs. Flight of the Falcon
 * Nice list. Do you have any ideas for what you would propose as a solution? I don't see a path to a blanket rule that would apply to all of the above. I could see some going either way. We could talk through a few as examples if it would be helpful. czar  11:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * In the general case across Wikipedia, we prefer natural disambiguation (by using a subtitle) vice using a parenthetic disambiguation. Alpha Centauri, Minotaur, Halo: Combat Evolved are such cases.
 * With AC4, in video games, it's quite normal for followon games/expansions to be released, or notable DLC to be released, which take on the AC4 moniker, so pre-disambiguation makes sense here. We're avoiding a future pagemove by simply leaving the article at the full name.
 * Something like Blood Stone, it occurs to me, might be ambiguous with many of these terms, which have a longer-lived notability. This is another reason we should have subtitles.
 * Including series names helps with identification. For users familiar only with the broad series, adding a Halo to Combat Evolved helps to land the user in the place he's expecting to be reviewing.
 * Something else is poking around my head, but that's a start. --Izno (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

how often is the subtitle actually used/invoked

almost never Kameo Hatoful Boyfriend Eternal Darkness (more than almost never but still closer to this category)

often, but not as much as the main title E.V.O.: Search for Eden(?)

often, as much as the main title AC4: Black Flag (this is actually a great example—it's not like the other series games are just "Rogue" or "Syndicate" as they need the AC prefix, but AC4 is more often known as AC BF than AC4) Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame(??) Ocarina of Time Blood Stone (rarely used without main title)

often, more so than the main title (these are rare cases, more the exception than the rule) Yoshi's Island Skyrim?

used as natural disambig Halo: Combat Evolved Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Help me place Dragon Quest entries Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War Halo 5: Guardians Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete (I agree that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel should be MGS (GBC) based on its usage in Eng-lang sources)

I started to type out my thoughts for myself, but I'm just going to dump them here raw/rough in case they might be useful: The more I think about the "consistency" issue, the more I can only see it resolved series by series. I don't know enough about the DQ series... while I'd doubt it offhand, I don't know whether each title in the series puts as much weight on their Roman numerals as on their subtitles. I'd recommend a series-level discussion for that. The same for Tomb Raider—I know that those subtitles are not invoked nearly as often as their ordinal numbers. Also sometimes the name just is where it happens to be (e.g., Sega Genesis). I could see the Morrowind discussion falling either way, though my hunch is that the subtitle-only solution is a better fit based on how I've seen it used in sources. The main theme is to drop the subtitle (concision) unless the sources somehow mention it often enough to give it as much weight as the main title (recognizability: such that it would be weird to drop it—case in point, AC4 Black Flag). And then there are exceptions based on common name (Yoshi's Island, Enter the Dominatrix, most DLCs with their own articles, possibly Morrowind series). And when the subtitle is used as natural disambiguation (Minotaur, Monaco), it's usually more of a case-by-case basis on what would be least confusing for readers. Without sources that say otherwise, I wouldn't object to keeping the subtitles in those cases. Hopefully some part of that compartmentalization can be helpful czar  12:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for joining the discussion. I don't fully understand what you said about AC4; could you elaborate?
 * I was trying to pointing out that the guidelines WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:SUBTITLE, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME can be contradictory.
 * WP:CONSISTENCY: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
 * The guideline says we should try to be consistent in the titles of articles. We're talking about the titles of video games, and they're clearly not consistent. Some articles have a subtitle, some do not.
 * WP:SUBTITLE: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes."
 * Okay, so what is a "short" article title? Is Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, with two words more than Eternal Darkness, too long for a title? The guideline is based upon WP:CONCISE.
 * WP:CONCISE: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area."
 * This is very ambiguously phrased; "to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area"? So we should keep titles as short as possible, so that people familiar with video games can easily identify what's it about? Isn't Wikipedia written for a large audience? And how would shortening the title actually help someone not familiar with video games?
 * WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"
 * If we should use the common name, why not use GTA V as the title? Or Skyrim, instead of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem: Heroes of Light and Shadow got me thinking: what do we mean when we're talking about a subtitle? Subtitle (titling) says "In books and other works, a subtitle is an explanatory or alternate title". Of course, we can't use Wikipedia for Wikipedia, dictionary.cambridge.org: "a word, phrase, or sentence that is used as the second part of a book title and is printed under the main title at the front of the book"; Merriam-Webster: "a title that comes after the main title of a book and that often gives more information about the contents of the book". Dictionary.com: "a secondary or subordinate title of a literary work, usually of explanatory character". First, these definitions all talk about books. Second, usually subtitles provide a bit more about the content of the book. I guess the subtitles of books traditionally provided a bit information on its contents. But aren't video game titles just stylized so that they sound intriguing, or "cool"? I mean, that there is a sanity meter in Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem can't be understood from the title. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That FE is a great example—it's not known as just "New Mystery of the Emblem" or "Heroes of Light and Shadow" as it's always used with "Fire Emblem" and the vast majority of the sources don't even use Heroes of Light and Shadow. "Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem" would appear to be sufficient as far as the AT criteria goes. The same way, "Sanity's Requiem" is not prominently used in the sources because "Eternal Darkness" sufficiently references the game without the need for more info. At first brush, most of the Dragon Quest titles work the same way. I haven't checked whether the IP is correct that some titles have multiple subtitles, but from the ones I checked, DQ + the Roman numeral appears to be sufficient for identifying the article and in line with how the sources discuss the title. [Edit: A caveat to this would be if it is primarily known in Europe by the subtitle and not by the Roman numeral, which would be a case for keeping both.] To add another example, the "Redemption" in Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption functions more as part of the title than as a subtitle. Based on the sourcing, that would be an example in which it's known by its full name. czar  23:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another example: Civilization (series) vs. Sid Meier's Civilization (MobyGames, Time, IGN). Why would a dash mean it is part of the title, but a colon means a subtitle? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sid Meier's" could make sense as a disambiguator, depending on the sources, but a simple romp through the video game reliable sources custom Google search has "Civilization 6/VI" as more popular than the full title. That's more in line with Wikipedia using the common name rather than the official name. If somehow "Civilization 6" was in conflict with some other civilization on WP, it would be a discussion of whether to parenthetical or naturally disambiguate. Re: the dash in cases like Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide, I'm rarely seeing "Rising Tide" used without C:BE or just BE either near or next to it, versus other expansions that are often cited without the need for a prefix. I imagine that has mostly to do with how well the subtitle can stand on its own. ("Redemption" in the Vampire: The Masquerade example is technically a subtitle—I meant that one part of its title can't stand without the other.)  czar  23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my point, if RS'es drop Sid Meier's, and we do too, why not drop The Elder Scrolls V from Skyrim? Or Grand Theft Auto from Chinatown Wars? Here are some more:

soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, there's no Metal Gear Rising
 * DmC: Devil May Cry, no other DmC, and DmC redirects to the article
 * Michael Jordan: Chaos in the Windy City, no video game called Michael Jordan or just Chaos in the Windy City
 * Conversely, Barkley Shut Up and Jam! doesn't have a colon, dash or apostrophe
 * Taboo: The Sixth Sense vs. Taboo (video game), but "taboo" is too common, so we should use the full title, going against WP:SUBTITLE
 * First, there was Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), followed by Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis. With a 2 in the title, the subtitle should be dropped, right? The following sequel Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again! dropped the number from the title, so we would need its full title for that one. That's being inconsistent
 * Metroid II: Return of Samus vs. Metroid II; Metroid Prime 2: Echoes vs. Metroid Prime 2; Metroid Prime 3: Corruption vs. Metroid Prime 3
 * Castlevania Puzzle: Encore of the Night vs. Castlevania Puzzle
 * Castlevania: Lords of Shadow – Mirror of Fate; there is a Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, but no other Mirror of Fate, why not move it there?
 * Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue vs. Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8; Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance vs. Kingdom Hearts 3D or Dream Drop Distance
 * Offhand (more thought would go into the actual discussion), I do think we should drop The Elder Scrolls V from Skyrim. But I noted in my "word vomit" above that I think those sorts of cases are rare. Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars isn't known by just "Chinatown Wars", so I would need to be convinced. Similarly, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is not known in any source as just "Metal Gear Rising". It goes back to your example of why Grand Theft Auto V isn't just GTA V and I'd say the answer is that it prioritizes concision over recognizability. DmC: Devil May Cry would be unrecognizable as just "DmC" as would "GTA V" (I'm sure we have a policy on abbreviations somewhere too). Sources never appear to use "Mirror of Fate" without Castlevania: LoS attached. I'd be inclined to move for "Metroid Prime 2" and even "Halo 5" unless there is a remarkable exception on the basis of it being known by its subtitle as much as by its primary title. I could go on with the rest if you'd like, but I think they're individual cases. Is Barkley Shut Up and Jam! known as just "Barkley" in the sources? If not, it wouldn't make a good article title. What do you think? czar  01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like WP:TONE? IGN, MobyGames and GameRankings write Barkley: Shut Up And Jam!, with a colon.
 * I still don't see the connection between a book subtitle, and a video game subtitle. When is a subtitle a subtitle? Because two of the examples at WP:SUBTITLE aren't clear either. A History of Western Philosophy vs. A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day cuts off from "and", while On the Origin of Species vs. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) isn't cut off from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, but on On the Origin of Species. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find a hard cut-off for when a subtitle is a subtitle. The intent is to use a form of the title that balances the naming criteria (specifically concision and recognizability) and sources tend to do that weeding for us. (Also re: Barkley, I'd be curious what the print magazines used but at least I don't see the game listed as just "Barkley" anywhere.) Back to the point, I don't think anyone was ever advocating the subtitle guideline as a reason to lop off everything after every colon—it's really meant, again, as a shortcut for WP:CONCISE and the related parts of the naming criteria. Does that make sense and do you agree? If not, what can we do to clarify? In any event, I think it would be smart to add some of the better examples above to the Naming conventions (video games) as reference points (e.g., when parts of the title are decorative or necessary) czar  08:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me, because WP:CONCISE says "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". So we should be concise in the titles of video game articles, for people familiar with video games. But isn't Wikipedia written for a large audience? Besides, we might be familiar with video games, but I can't automatically tell if it is an article about a video game by its title alone. Still, WP:CONCISE is what WP:SUBTITLE is based upon, but as we've established, there is no clear way of identifying if it is a subtitle. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem is four words long, why would Sanity's Requiem be a subtitle? And if would to remove Black Flag from Assassin's Creed IV, how would that help "identifying" the subject? Then there's WP:COMMONNAME again, but if we would follow that guideline, there's an issue with WP:CONSISTENCY.
 * A paragraph (or section even!) on when or when not to use a subtitle sounds amazing right about now. Still, what it say, I don't really know. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be reading too much into that "familiar with the subject area" bit—the examples are Rhode Island and a long Fiona Apple title and they both don't require any extensive knowledge. I'd read "familiar" as "passing familiarity" or probably not think about it at all? Perhaps you'll want to take your subtitles questions to the policy's talk page. I said this already but I don't think the point is to drop "WP:SUBTITLE" on a move discussion because the title has a colon—it's supposed to be a shortcut for saying that the full title has extraneous text for purposes of identifying its article (not particularly recognizable or concise). I can't tell if you're expecting a guideline with a hard edge/recommendation for a case like AC4 Black Flag but if you are, I don't think it's happening/possible/necessary. As it stands, I'd read the current naming criteria as preferring the shorter title unless there is a reason for adding "Black Flag"—and that's always going to be a case by case basis czar  09:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand your interpretation of WP:CIVILITY
I'm trying to understand, in good faith, your interpretation of WP:CIVILITY.

There were three major aspects to my response at Talk:Frozen 2. First, I merely pointed out that the other editor was essentially saying that it's okay to publish rumors from unreliable sources, and therefore the editor was advocating the publication of information in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies. Second, I pointed out that editors who do not conform to those policies tend to be banned. Third, I pointed out that the other editor again appears to not understand how film production works.

If you are saying that my response was incivil because of the second and third aspects above, I have just refreshed my memory on WP:CIVILITY for the first time in seven months and I concede the point. I apologize for the second and third aspects, because after thinking them through, I see now that the second aspect was too intimidating and the third aspect was too personal. I will try harder to avoid such inappropriate remarks in commenting on others' edits in the future.

But if you are saying that my response was incivil because of the first aspect, then at some point we need to have this conversation on the talk page for WP:CIVILITY (and a lot of other places). Because if you're taking that position, then I am genuinely puzzled as to how the core content policies can or should be enforced against any editor, since by your reasoning it would be not civil to merely point out how their edits violate such policies. That is, are you implicitly taking the position that editors should have carte blanche as to article content as long as they are nice to each other? --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's a topical breakdown of your actions, but "tone" pervades the whole thing. Your comments were prima facie hostile, bossy, and rude, and based on the multiple complaints on your talk page, this is a repeat occurrence. I don't see how any of that even needs explanation. Every day thousands of editors manage to discuss WP content without making character judgments or setting up straw men (of course I am not advocating carte blanche for article content... where would you even get that impression?) I suggest taking some time to cool off. czar  05:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I am really confused, because that was my first impression of your response. For now, I'll accept your recommendation to cool off, but when I have the time (in a few weeks or so), I think we do need to discuss the larger issue further at the talk page for WP:CIVILITY as to whether there is a consensus as to whether the civility guideline equates to carte blanche insofar as it would not be civil to point out that another editor's edits are a potential violation of the core content policies.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone sees it that way so I wouldn't expect a lively conversation. You're welcome to express that something is wrong but you're not welcome to degrade other peaceable editors in getting that point across. That is basic justice. czar  02:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

, I'm happy to see that you've responded to Czar in a (relatively) cool manner. I respect the work you do but your talk page is littered with people asking you to improve your tone. I think I said something similar at some point. You've never seemed to really respond to these complaints. I fully endorse Czar's efforts. II | (t - c) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:162.89.0.47
FYI this IP editor's account is. I just received a talk message from them, and they are now continuing to make infobox changes. They also left you a message on their talk page: User talk:MissWooof --The1337gamer (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On User talk:MissWooof, posted a personal attacks towards you. See this permalink. Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  11:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Video game images and OTRS
Good day to you!

If you ever have any tickets at OTRS waiting for processing regarding video games, just ping me and I'll get them fast-tracked. :) (t) Josve05a  (c) 05:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I actually have a few open tickets right now: Flinthook, Manifold Garden, and Tacoma. Their OTRS tickets are linked in each. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make their processing easier. I appreciate your help czar  21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing you could do, is that if they agree to both cc-by-sa and GFDL, to use  so all licenses are licensed. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Flinthook ✅. Will look at the others tomorrow. (t) Josve05a  (c) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tacoma also ✅. Manifold Garden however had a way too big zipped file for my low-memory/low-internet connection to download at this time. (t) Josve05a  (c) 15:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ali Kazmi
Hello! Please take a look at Draft:Ali Kazmi and move it to mainspace. It looks pretty well for now instead of one or two sources, which will be replaced eventually. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled Colin Warner project
Hello czar! Can you please do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Untitled Colin Warner biopic → Untitled Colin Warner project ? Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done—needs some merging between the two versions though czar  08:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Age of Shadows (film)
Hello again. Please move Draft:The Age of Shadows (film) → The Age of Shadows (film) — The film was not reported during filming, but it's trailer has been released, means filming's done. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  06:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article request
Hello czar, here I concluded that you might be able to supply individual articles from the Encyclopedia of the Arctic, edited by Mark Nuttall. May I ask you for the article Melville Bay, Vol. II, pp. 1274 - 1276. Please send by E-Mail attachment to Ratzer.Wikipediagmail.com. Thank you, and greeetings from the de-WP,--Ratzer (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , an update—I requested this encyclopedia from elsewhere in the state, but they didn't let me request the volume so I'll either (1) get all three volumes and be fine, or (2) have the request canceled. Just a heads up. czar  21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, & greetings, --Ratzer (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , Twemoji 1f4e8.svg sent czar  20:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar, well received, and saved to disk. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dionne Warwick – A House Is Not a Home (song).jpg
Can you undo the closure at Files for discussion/2016 June 5? You commented and then closed the discussion. If not, can you say no prejudice to replacing it boldly with another image? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I could undo it but if it's to say that there is no prejudice in changing the image, that's implied and why I left the comment (in lieu of putting it in the closure statement) czar  21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hunter Killer (film) and Draft:Life (2017 film)
Hello! Please move Draft:Hunter Killer (film) → Hunter Killer (film) and Draft:Life (2017 film) → Life (2017 film) — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Real Housewives cast photos
Hi Czar. I saw your close at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 25 as well as this talk page post of yours. Do you think FFD discussions are needed for File:The Real Housewives of Atlanta S8.png, File:RHODC Season 1 Cast.png, File:The Real Housewives of New York City season 8 cast.jpg, File:The Real Housewives of Miami S3 cast.jpg, File:The Real Housewives of Orange County season 11.png, File:RHOPSeason1Cast.jpg, File:The Real Housewives of Vancouver season 2 cast.jpg, File:The Real Housewives of Sydney season 1 cast.jpg, File:The cast of the first season of The Real Housewives of Dallas.jpg, File:The Real Housewives of Cheshire season 3 cast.jpg, File:The cast of the first season of The Real Housewives of Auckland.jpg, and File:The Real Housewives of Athens season 1 cast.jpg or can they all simply be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7. Each of the aforementioned files is being used in essentially the same way as the one discussed at FFD, so the arguments which could be made would be pretty much the same. Moreover, if a freely licensed File:The Real Housewives Of Melbourne 2016 TV Week Logie Awards (26871490886).jpg can be created/found, then it seems possible for free equivalents, either as ensemble photos or individual cast members photos, to be created/found for the other shows in the series. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , best option would be to find free-use replacements so that no one has any qualms about removing them. WP:NFCC#1 doesn't make a lot of sense to editors unfamiliar with the encyclopedia's free use mission, mostly because they expect every page to have an infobox and every infobox to have an image. I'd say the season seven case is slightly different because NFCC#1 provides that we want to actually encourage someone to create a free use alternative while they still can. I don't know enough about the previous seasons to know whether those images are actually irreplaceable. This is all to say that sometimes it's better to find the most amicable solution than to follow the policy to the letter. Perhaps the editors adding these images need some help finding free use alternatives or don't even know what that means. Now, if the solution is to delete this group (I haven't looked at all of them), I'd recommend a batch deletion discussion (put them all in the same nomination) instead of speedies, just in case any one file does need the room for discussion. (Speedies are supposed to be completely uncontroversial.) czar  06:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look and for the advice. Just for reference, none of the cast photos are being used in the main infoboxes of the articles, so NFCC#8 may also be an issue. Anyway, I will see there's anything on Commons which might be used. If I bring them up for discussion at FFD, I will do so as a group per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , if they're not used to illustrate the subject (in the infobox) then they definitely need context/necessity in the text (NFCC#8) but there's likely no context anyone can provide that could convince that no free use alternative exists (NFCC#1). But if some don't qualify in that group, might need separate nominations czar  07:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:United States
FYI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hello Czar, I am working on the bio of modern architect / artist Neri Oxman, and wonder if you would take a look and give me some feedback. Their work spans a wide range from engineering and design to biology and software, and I'm not sure how best to summarize/approach it. I've appreciated your work in the past and saw you listed interest in modern art on the PR pages :)

Regards, – SJ  +  07:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Natalie Jeremijenko. Left some quick thoughts czar  07:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nadia Kaabi-Linke/GA1
Left some feedback for you there. Overall, in excellent shape and a worthy GA nom. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice needed
Some months ago, I started working in the article Allen Walker and managed to make it GA thanks to work with other users. I was wondering whether it could become a FA considering how many aspects of the character the reception covered, but the Anime and Manga project doesn't have a single FA character article. Do you recommend me to use a FA from the video game project as example to follow (like Lightning (Final Fantasy)? Anyways, if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , eh, I wish we had more positive precedent. The featured video game characters are here (separated articles from lists), but the 2009-era Halo ones are... no longer FA quality—overemphasis on in-universe plot and really weak Reception sections (regurgitated listicles). I haven't read them closely recently but Lightning and Ellie are good models, though I'll add that Lightning gets a bit dry at times and has a listicle paragraph that shouldn't fly. Ellie is the best example of a balanced, warranted character article that I've seen, though it is much shorter than Lightning's. (Again, haven't read both closely, but brevity is a better trait than verbosity, especially for FAC's prose requirements.) As for needing models in the first place, the major difference between GA and FA is source and prose quality so your sources should be scrutinized for quality and the prose should be clear and "brilliant" (per FACR "1a"). In that regard, you don't really need a precedent. Niche articles also tend to get away somewhat under the radar at FAC too since their usual reviewers are more active in the topic than the review area, so the Lightning article can get away with the aforementioned paragraph while an article on a public figure would never include such a thing. That's more a fault of our community, though. You might also be interested in WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content but upon a spot-check of its entries, they're on par with the Halo character articles, so in need of cleanup to contemporary standards. czar  00:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for the talk. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, on a second note reading Ellie (The Last of Us), I wonder if Allen's first paragraph in appearances could be turned into an attributes section.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't split out that paragraph unless it's warranted by secondary sources. Also note the concision of the Ellie paragraphs on plot/primary sources. Allen's plot summary could be feasibly halved (or more—it should follow the weight of coverage in secondary sources). czar  02:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I made one in my sandbox.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a peer review for the same article here. Thankfully, a user who appeared to be skilled with FAs gave a lot of commentary. After doing some things the user commented, I requested the article to be copyedited whereas another user archived all urls. If you could provide criticism, I'm all ears. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Histmerge
I recall that you did a histmerge for an article that I was involved with. A few days ago, I created. A day or so later, was created. Not to impose, but I was wondering if you could histmerge the two. Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , no problem: ✓ done czar  02:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed redirect?
Hi. I noticed that you have made Mohammad Alavi (game developer) a redirect to No Russian. Have you discussed this major change anywhere, or was this your own idea? The articles was considered to be notable enough. Pahlevun (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Little to none of the coverage was actually about him. You can merge to the parent article as necessary, per that AfD. If it were to be restored, it would go to AfD again and the consensus would be to merge or delete, unless there exists some hidden cache of sources that the article was missing... czar  17:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose you did it without any discussion. The discussion result was to "Keep" with "No prejudice towards a merge discussion" and Wikipedia is not a crystall ball to act based on predicting "it would go to AfD again and the consensus would be to merge or delete". I restore the article per discussion and you are free to open a AfD discussion. Pahlevun (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there's been no new coverage since 2013 and it's a person known for a single event, one which has its own article now. If you feel strongly, feel free to revert per BRD but know that I don't think it can withstand the deletion discussion that comes next. That has nothing to do with WP not being a "crystal ball" (read: that we don't write about things as if they'll be notable without proof) but my experience with notability on Wikipedia. czar  22:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not link this when I said about "crystal ball" and I did not mean it. Anyway, it seems that we simply disagree with eachother and it's natural. Pahlevun (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Farm-Fresh eye.png Articles for deletion/Mohammad Alavi (game developer) (2nd nomination) czar  17:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

CFDcloser
Hi Czar, can you add User:Evad37/CFDcloser.js to User:Czar/closexfd.js. Thanks, Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks and ✓ done czar  06:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection request
This may seem somewhat random, but I went to recent changes hoping to find an admin who is currently on the site and you are the first one I saw. Could you please protect Lilly King? I put in an RFPP request nearly an hour ago and the vandalism still continues. This is probably a fairly heavily trafficked article at the moment, too. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done. A shame—I saw some good edits in there, but far outweighed by the IP vandalism. czar  03:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Anytime. You did the right thing. Thanks for your service as well! czar  03:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wiki issue- ask for help
Hi Czar Hope this finds you well. I see you're a high level experience wiki editor, would like to ask you if it's not too much trouble, Can you please help take a look at this wiki I created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Y._Du all references are from reliable sources with links to the sources provided as references, all info on the wiki are relevant from the sources. I don't know what's the reason it has been marked for deletion.I did not understand the tag. Prior to the wiki marked for deletion, I've received messages from wiki editors, they asked me to pay them in order to get the wiki page kept on and they suggested they'll maintain the page, I ignored them and I see now that they've been "contributing" in getting the wiki page deleted. I don't think that's how wiki should work. would be great if you can help with this issue. many thanks. Audreylomberg (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry that you had to go through all that. There are many more pleasant parts of the encyclopedia than the one with which you're currently engaged. It looks like the other admins you've contacted have already responded with advice so I'll just reiterate that (1) no one should be holding any article hostage, nevertheless for money. I would report those details to Michig's email right away, as requested. (2) If you have more reliable, independent source for the article, now would be the time to add them. (3) Since this is the second time you've worked on this article, without much work on other articles, I would like to remind of our Conflict of interest guidelines, which ask that you declare any affiliations with the subject on the article's talk page. If there's anything else I can offer, please let me know.  czar  18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Czar, thank you very much for your advice. Audreylomberg (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Zotero translator
Could you help me fix the issues mentioned for this translator? It is my first attemt at writing a translaor, and I've gotten stuck due to these issues. (t) Josve05a  (c) 12:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , looks like Philipp is helping you but let me know if you need anything specific. And remember that you can detect the "tv.*" portion of the URL if you need to write special if/then conditions to pull specific attributes. Nice work on your first translator! czar  18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD's
Hey Czar,

Today's my last day of vacation, I'll try to join in some AfD's tomorrow. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD backlog
Just as a note, see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. I noticed that you expressed some interest in a script for working at CfD on the talk page. If that is indicative of an interest in closing discussions and you need any help whatsoever in getting started, please let me know. You're an old hat and know more than me in most areas, and I'm certain you have nothing to learn from me on assessing consensus. But if you're unfamiliar with category-specific stuff, I'm happy to help get you started.

I haven't reviewed your contributions, so please don't be insulted if you're an old-time CfD closer that's been on a break for a short time - I just haven't seen you around those parts recently. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I only participate in the occasional CfD but if I find myself delving in further, I'll certainly reach out to you first czar  15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article deletion issue
Hi, Czar I see you are a high level expert on wiki, can I ask for your help on editing an article I created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Y._Du the article is marked for deletion, but it's in the right category, written from a neutral point with relevant information from reliable sources, links of references are provided and cited, and are from acknowledged well recognized news sources, such as China Daily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/18/content_18435219.htm Sinovision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SinoVision http://video.sinovision.net/?id=23755&cid=121 All information on the wiki article were pulled from the news sources cited. Would be great if you can advice or edit to improve the article. thanks. Audreylomberg (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , did you see my response to your similar request above? czar  19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nadia Kaabi-Linke
Looks like the two photos in question just got deleted off of commons. Can you work to get those back in the article, following up with someone in OTRS to get and document the appropriate permissions. Not going to take away the GA sticker for it, but those were magnificent depictions of her artwork and our article is significantly lessened without them. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , yep, already on it (if you're curious, the permission holders didn't respond to follow-up questions, so I sent reminders) czar  19:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Races of The Elder Scrolls
Hey Czar,

What do you think of Races of The Elder Scrolls? Would you agree that a nicely trimmed section could easily be part of The Elder Scrolls? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's a mess of primary and unreliable sources. I opted for the redirect to the main section. czar  08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'll AFD it. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's a pretty stark case for redirection (was previously deleted), so I'd only AfD it if the redirect is contested czar  08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, nevermind, I see what you did :) Good call. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Shape of Water
Hello Czar! Can you please move Draft:The Shape of Water (film) → The Shape of Water (film) — Thanks! --Tammydemo 15:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a hero Czar! --Tammydemo 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , no hero, just your friendly neighborhood admin czar  15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Little Mermaid (upcoming film)
Hello czar! Will you please merge Draft:The Little Mermaid (2018 film) → Draft:The Little Mermaid (upcoming film)? The other draft's editor's submissions declines several times, and I think there should be only one draft we both be working on. Please merge those and keep the title with "(upcoming film)." Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done, but I had to remove two of your overlapping edits (they were small style fixes) czar  15:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks man. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid
Dear Czar,

you have no authority to edit my draft article The Little Mermaid (2018 film). i suggest you redo those edits or else i will complain to wikipedia about your disrespectful behaviour Imran Mazhar 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Articles belong to the community, not to individuals, and an existing draft was already in progress. I suggest that you collaborate a single draft or else work on a copy in your userspace, but in any event, there will be one final version from the common draft. czar  22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Its night here and i wanted to continue to edit it in the morning! please dont make edits as i am still wirking on it! and as far as i know the draft is of an indivisual user not the community. its not the final draft Imran Mazhar 23:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

August Twentysixteen
Friendly greetings; fair greetings; fond greetings from a man on the web to You. I noticed your talk page redirects to your user talk page; which you may have put in unintentionally; in that case youd like to fix things up; and you should think it awfully nice of me to tell you what ails you according to every rule of etiquette; or which your e-friends going to your page may consider an irrelevancy so to speak; probably the word is a redundancy. BatmobileFire (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on a WP:ANI message. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that took way longer than I thought it would. In case you've missed the pings, here is the ANI discussion. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , ah, I think a shorter message would have been sufficient, but looks like this has been brought to its natural conclusion czar  17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that escalated quickly. Too bad it had to come to that though. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback requested
Hey czar, I recently created Fallout 4: Nuka-World. I was wondering whether I should take the same approach with the gameplay section on this article as I did on Far Harbor (as in it talks about V.A.T.S, S.P.E.C.I.A.L., etc). It's going to be released in just over a week so there's no coverage on how the gameplay works, so maybe I should just leave it until then. <font color="#3ab628">Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I would, yep, using sources from the base game until you can replace them with newer sources. But might be worth even merging these expansion articles unless they have sufficient reviews and coverage to warrant the split from the base game. Most of what the article currently has is routine coverage. czar  17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that many of the expansions don't warrant their own article, and so I've also started Fallout 4 downloadable content as a main article. The only expansions so far that I've seen have significant coverage are Far Harbor and Nuka-World. I will probably end up merging Automatron sometime soon. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#3ab628">Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ark: Survival Evolved
Hi czar, I just wanted to seek your opinion regarding something. On the Ark: Survival Evolved article, there was previously a reference to a video interview with the creative director placed at the bottom of the article, with in-line references linking to the main link using the harvnb template; this was done in order to avoid confusion, as each reference referred to a specific part of a 49-minute video. However, this was recently removed in favour of one single reference, with no referral to any part of the video. Similar occurrences of this have been brought to my attention in the past (Ellie, Undertale), so I'd just to see what you thought about it. Perhaps using seven Cite interview templates in the references, linking to each time-stamp, would work better than one? – Rhain  ☔ 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's much, much better to include the video timecode (for obvious verifiability reasons...) so I don't know what that editor was thinking. Two ways of going about this: (1) As you had it, use bolded pseudoheaders (which are fine) even if it's just for a single ref, and then use sfn (short Harvard refs) to add timecodes for individual instances. Or (2), replace the first sfn instance with the full citation, though this will attach that first sfn's timecode to that full citation. So the drawbacks of each are straightforward: in the latter, the timecode on the full ref appears to describe the generalized reference, while in the former, the single-entry subsection can look strange. (Neither is wrong and I'd stick with whatever was used first until there is consensus otherwise.) The third alternative would be to create a mega footnote entry that includes the generalized source and subsequent subentries with timecodes (like Drakengard 3 but in a single footnote rather than in a separate section). This isn't a standard by any means, but it should be. You're also dealing with editors who can be overzealous with their application of "rules"—remember that IAR and third opinions are options if they get obnoxious. And looking at the old refs, if you do use sfn, remember to add final punctuation even when the footnote is a fragment. czar  04:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I decided to go with what was there previously (I also couldn't get sfn to work, and lacked the motivation to find a solution). Hopefully I'll have no opposition. – Rhain  ☔ 07:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edit—I think it certainly looks neater that way, but having the timecode on the full reference is a little inconvenient, and I think it could be confusing to readers. Hopefully we'll get some more sources to attribute the lonely interview sometime soon. – Rhain  ☔ 23:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

All Ghillied Up article
Hi there,

Having put a decent amount of time into the No Russian article, I noticed that there were a couple of other articles dedicated solely to All Ghillied Up, a rather iconic level in COD4. Since video game level articles are a rarity, and should only exist if they can establish notability, would an article for All Ghillied Up work? Here are the sources I've gotten so far:

1) http://www.pcgamer.com/from-all-ghillied-up-to-no-russian-the-making-of-call-of-dutys-most-famous-levels/ (Interview with the developer about the creation of All Ghillied Up)

2) https://web.archive.org/web/20130212213345/http://www.edge-online.com/features/no-russian-the-modder-who-went-on-to-made-modern-call-of-dutys-most-controversial-set-piece/ (Pretty much the same thing with more info)

3) http://kotaku.com/what-modern-warfares-all-ghillied-up-got-right-1649797510 (Very lengthy article from Kotaku about the level)

4) http://www.ign.com/top/video-game-moments/13 (Listed by IGN as one of the greatest video game moments]

5) http://www.gamesradar.com/10-best-call-duty-moments-history-series/ (Listed by GamesRadar as the greatest Call of Duty moment)

6) Several reviews, including GameSpot, GamesRadar, Eurogamer, and Destructoid said that the level was the highlight from the campaign, with Destructoid calling it "an experience that anyone with even a passing fetish for military ops absolutely must experience".

While it doesn't have as many refs as No Russian has, I still think I can squeeze out a decent article from these refs. So what do you think, would it be viable? Famous Hobo (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'd start it as a section within COD4—try to flesh out the point of these sources without going into extraneous detail. I could see it going either way—if the section gets too large, there could be cause for splitting (summary style). Ping me then and I'll take another look? czar  20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)